Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Aug 2015, 1:25 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Newsflash: the deal does away with sanctions

No it doesn't. The sanctions are loosed only upon verification of compliance to the deal.
If Iran is found in contravention the snap back of sanctions can occur with only the US, EU, France, Germany and UK voting... But Russia and China, even if they don't vote for the snap back, are committed to it...


We've discussed this before. The snapback provisions are a joke. All Iran has to do is not draw the full ire of the heavily economically-engaged French and Germans and we would lose any vote.

On the other hand if the current deal falls through, the US will have demonstrated, once again, that it is an unreliable partner and Russia and China will use that excuse to end their cooperation and participation in sanctions. (India and Japan too)


Hah-hah. Good one. Yes, the US under Obama is an unreliable partner--ask the Jordanians, the Ukrainians, the Kurds, the Syrian freedom fighters, the Egyptians, the Israelis, and I'm sure the list is much longer.

But, you are repeating yourself. Again.

You really don't understand the deal do you? (Perhaps its willful ignorance?)


No, perhaps we have a difference of opinion. You fawn over your savior and I don't. He's proven himself to be a feeble President in terms of foreign affairs.

Fate
So, logically, it's pretty STUPID to give them $150B more to commit terror with without at least TRYING to restrict bad behavior, isn't it?

First, its their money. Its been seized with the compliance of the participating nations in order to force the agreement that's been reached. If the deal falls through, then a lot of the money will be released as a result of the collapse of the deal.


I don't care if it belongs to them. What will they do with it? (this is where you pretend you don't know, even though the Iranians have told us)

Reneging on the deal now, and keeping the money, is tantamount to simply stealing the money. (And Iran has complaints about the theft of oil revenues by the US and UK for years so this simply confirms the nature of the West to everyone in the Middle East.)


Meh. Give it to the Americans who have lost loved ones because of Iranian actions. Give it to the survivors of the 444 day hostage-taking. But, do not tell us that giving it to Hezbollah and other terrorist groups is no big thing.

Second, they have many needs for those funds. Mostly infrastructure improvements.


Hey buddy, they could be doing some of that now instead of funding terrorism. Why don't they?

Oh, because they think it is their religious duty to kill people?

Oh, okay, so let's give them a bigger bankroll!

Again, why isn't this in the deal???????

You've not answered this question. Why is that?

Third, according to you they've been sponsoring terrorism even without access to those funds. That's something they seem to do effectively on the cheap....


According to me????

Would you like to deny it?

Answer yes or no.

Fourth: Maybe they'll use some of the funds to help fight ISIS..... Since they are the only effective military in the region that opposes ISIS maybe that's not such a bad thing.


So, you're in favor of Iran being a regional hegemon? Yes or no.

The objective of the deal was to get Iran to commit to a verification process that ensures that they can't build nuclear weapons. The objective has been met.


"Can't"--you will eat that word.

Fate
What is a quart of Republicans?

A miserable, angry mass of old white men. Looks kinda like a bottle of curdled milk. Thinks as effectively as well.


Oh, that's so funny--except it's the Democratic nominees who are all OLD, and, with the exception of Hillary, white men.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Aug 2015, 12:41 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Newsflash: the deal does away with sanctions

No it doesn't. The sanctions are loosed only upon verification of compliance to the deal.


Hmm, so maybe Iran gets to verify its own compliance????

VIENNA (AP) — Iran, in an unusual arrangement, will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect a site it allegedly used to develop nuclear arms under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.


It appears the US caved into Iranian demands and used the "side deal" to hide it from the American people.

But the agreement diverges from normal inspection procedures between the IAEA and a member country by essentially ceding the agency's investigative authority to Iran. It allows Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence for activities that it has consistently denied — trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Evidence of that concession, as outlined in the document, is sure to increase pressure from U.S. congressional opponents as they review the July 14 Iran nuclear deal and vote on a resolution of disapproval in early September. If the resolution passed and President Barack Obama vetoed it, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to override it. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has suggested opponents will likely lose.

The White House has denied claims by critics that a secret "side deal" favorable to Tehran exists. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has said the Parchin document is like other routine arrangements between the agency and individual IAEA member nations, while IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told Republican senators last week that he is obligated to keep the document confidential.


The sound you just heard was the already low support for the deal cratering.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 19 Aug 2015, 12:52 pm

Sounds terrible...except whatever was done at the site occurred a decade ago (according to the article). Kind of reminiscent of invading a country because they used to have non- nuclear WMDs a decade previous...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Aug 2015, 1:09 pm

freeman3 wrote:Sounds terrible...except whatever was done at the site occurred a decade ago (according to the article). Kind of reminiscent of invading a country because they used to have non- nuclear WMDs a decade previous...


Sure, let's trust Iran!

Btw, you previously said a person's politics determined his/her view of the deal. So far, two Democrats don't get it: Schumer and Menendez.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 19 Aug 2015, 2:31 pm

fate
So, you're in favor of Iran being a regional hegemon? Yes or no


Iran is a regional power. They have a strong ally in Iraq (the Shia portion at least) . This is reality.

You can't be in favor or opposed to reality. The nature of the Middle East is a religious conflict comparable to the European religious wars. The link below is a great explanation of the complexities)
Given this, I would like Iran not to possess nuclear weapons. The deal accomplishes that. for at least 15 years. Scuttling that would mean Iran could, if we believe Nethanyahu have a nuke in less than 2 years.

Its totally unrealistic to expect anything more out of sanctions regime. Everything Iran has done in the region has been done despite the sanctions, so its obvious that they could continue them regardless.

And its totally unreal to expect Congress to be able to scuttle the deal. McConnell has already said he doesn't have the votes to over come a veto. So its done and dusted.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Aug 2015, 2:53 pm

Rickyp has failed to answer some questions. So, I'll repeat them for his convenience.

Doctor Fate wrote:When has Iran EVER demonstrated it "has no nuclear weapons ambitions?"

Be specific.


When has Iran "unilaterally eschew[ed]" nuclear power? The whole reason these negotiations were needed is because Iran, in violation of the NPT and UN sanctions, was pursuing nuclear weaponry. Why was Stuxnet used? For fun?


Exactly where, do you suppose, US foreign policy has any credibility at the moment? For most Obama apologists, the best they can do is Myanamar. Any other suggestions? (Note well: I look forward to your punch line, er, I mean "answer")


Really, where, o where is Iran not doing what it wants now? Oh, and if Congress approves the deal--what IN THE DEAL restrains Iran from sponsoring terrorism and trying to kill Americans?

Be specific. Please cite the wording. Thanks.


So, you're in favor of Iran being a regional hegemon? Yes or no


It's a "yes or no" answer, but you couldn't muster an answer.

Regarding Iran and terrorism, you wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
rickyp wrote:Third, according to you they've been sponsoring terrorism even without access to those funds. That's something they seem to do effectively on the cheap..
..

According to me????

Would you like to deny it?

Answer yes or no.


What about yes or no questions is so difficult for you?

The deal accomplishes that. for at least 15 years. Scuttling that would mean Iran could, if we believe Nethanyahu have a nuke in less than 2 years.


Not even Obama is claiming "at least 15 years." Do you have a source?

Update: the White House is claiming that. I would love to get odds from them since rickyp doesn't have the conviction to do so.

Two senators are challenging the White House to release the details of letters they've sent to China and Russia. These letters (allegedly) give assurance to our "friends" that their companies won't be subject to "snapback" sanctions.

If the White House didn’t mean to say that foreign companies doing business with Iran will be exempt from future sanctions, what exactly did they mean? And why would Obama give assurances like this at all? Given that the U.S. already has so little commerce with Iran, the real lure for Tehran in sanctions relief is getting access to European and Chinese markets again. If those markets are sure to stay open even if Iran cheats, with only American businesses affected by the “snap back,” what incentive does Iran have not to cheat?


Drip. Drip. Drip.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 19 Aug 2015, 2:58 pm

The key point I think is we're a bit more concerned that they don't do anything in the future as opposed to what they did more than ten years ago.

I don't want to reduce any senator's opposition to the deal based on connections to Israel, but Schumer is Jewish and Melendez has close connections to the Jewish community. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/ny ... rrer=&_r=0

If you're going to proffer Democrats opposing the deal as enhancing opposition to the deal because they are liberals, it is fair to point out things in their backgrounds that may contribute to their opposing the deal.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Aug 2015, 3:14 pm

freeman3 wrote:The key point I think is we're a bit more concerned that they don't do anything in the future as opposed to what they did more than ten years ago.

I don't want to reduce any senator's opposition to the deal based on connections to Israel, but Schumer is Jewish and Melendez has close connections to the Jewish community. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/ny ... rrer=&_r=0

If you're going to proffer Democrats opposing the deal as enhancing opposition to the deal because they are liberals, it is fair to point out things in their backgrounds that may contribute to their opposing the deal.


Yes it is. And, they have more fear FOR Israel than they do fear OF Obama.

But, it does remove a bit of the "partisan" label, no matter how you slice it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Oct 2015, 9:33 am

So, the Supreme Leader is out to promote me to "prophet" status.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—better known as the Iran nuclear deal—was officially adopted Sunday, Oct. 18. That’s nine days ago. It’s already a dead letter.

Not that you would have noticed by reading the news or tuning in to State Department or White House briefings. It’s too embarrassing to an administration that has invested all of its diplomatic capital in the deal. Also, too inconvenient to the commodity investors, second-tier banks, European multinationals and everyone else who wants a piece of the Iranian market and couldn’t care less whether Tehran honors its nuclear bargain.

Yet here we are. Iran is testing the agreement, reinterpreting it, tearing it up line by line. For the U.S.—or at least our next president—the lesson should be clear: When you sign a garbage agreement, you get a garbage outcome.

Earlier this month Iran test-fired a new-generation ballistic missile, called Emad, with an estimated 1,000-mile range and a 1,600-pound payload. Its only practical military use is to deliver a nuclear warhead. The test was a bald violation of the Security Council’s Resolution 2231, adopted unanimously in July, in which “Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons” for at least eight years.

Then Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei weighed in on the nuclear deal by way of a public letter to President Hassan Rouhani. “The behavior and words of the U.S. government in the nuclear issue and its prolonged and boring negotiations,” he wrote, “showed that [the nuclear issue] was also another link in their chain of hostile enmity with the Islamic Republic.”

The Supreme Leader’s comments on the nuclear deal have been billed by some reporters as a cautious endorsement of the agreement. Not exactly. They are a unilateral renegotiation of the entire deal, stipulating that the U.S. and everyone else must accept his rewrite—or else.

The best analysis of Mr. Khamenei’s demands comes from Yigal Carmon and Ayelet Savyon of the Middle East Media Research Institute. Demand One: The U.S. and Europe must completely lift, rather than temporarily suspend, their economic sanctions, putting an end to any possibility that penalties could “snap back” in the event of Iran’s noncompliance. Demand Two: Sanctions against Iran for its support of terrorism and its human-rights abuses must also go, never mind the Obama administration’s insistence that it will continue to punish Iran for its behavior.

Next Mr. Khamenei changes the timetable for Iran to ship out its enriched uranium and modify its plutonium reactor in Arak until the International Atomic Energy Agency gives Iran a pass on all “past and future issues (including the so-called Possible Military Dimensions or PMD of Iran’s nuclear program).” So much for the U.N. nuclear watchdog even pretending to monitor Iran’s compliance with the deal. He also reiterates his call for a huge R&D effort so that Iran will have at least 190,000 centrifuges when the nuclear deal expires.


For once, I take no joy in being right.

And yes, it will get worse. Much worse.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 28 Feb 2016, 12:46 pm

Interesting results from the Iranian elections. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/f ... make-gains

The leader of the faction close to Ayatollah Khameini is likely to lose his seat.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Mar 2016, 3:26 pm

If this is true, it is a massive indictment of the Obama/Kerry team:

ran on Tuesday again threatened to walk away from the nuclear agreement reached last year with global powers, hours after the country breached international agreements by test-firing ballistic missiles.

Iran’s most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current U.N. Security Council resolutions, comes a day after the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization disclosed that it is prohibited by the nuclear agreement from publicly reporting on potential violations by Iran.


Yes, heaven forbid anyone should be told if Iran is violating UN resolutions. Very nicely negotiated--by the Iranians.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 May 2016, 5:11 pm

Yup, the deal was so bad that Obama and Co. had to rely on duping the media to ram it through.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magaz ... -guru.html

This piece speaks volumes about Obama's idiocy with regard to foreign policy: it doesn't matter if something is "good" or not, what matters is that Obama and Rhodes believe it is good.

Now Rhodes is bragging about how they fooled everyone.

Meanwhile, Iran keeps doing its thing. Why did the US have to buy heavy water? Hint: Iran's not supposed to have any.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 10 May 2016, 10:44 am

Doctor Fate wrote:Now Rhodes is bragging about how they fooled everyone.
where is he doing that? from your link (my emphasis):

Yet Rhodes bridled at the suggestion that there has been anything deceptive about the way that the agreement itself was sold. “Look, with Iran, in a weird way, these are state-to-state issues. They’re agreements between governments. Yes, I would prefer that it turns out that Rouhani and Zarif” — Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister — “are real reformers who are going to be steering this country into the direction that I believe it can go in, because their public is educated and, in some respects, pro-American. But we are not betting on that.”
Last edited by danivon on 10 May 2016, 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 May 2016, 1:47 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Now Rhodes is bragging about how they fooled everyone.
where is he doing that? from your link (my emphasis):

Yet Rhodes bridled at the suggestion that there has been anything deceptive about the way that the agreement itself was sold. “Look, with Iran, in a weird way, these are state-to-state issues. They’re agreements between governments. Yes, I would prefer that it turns out that Rouhani and Zarif” — Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister — “are real reformers who are going to be steering this country into the direction that I believe it can go in, because their public is educated and, in some respects, pro-American. But we are not betting on that.”


They started the negotiations in 2012, but made it seem like it wasn't until more "moderate" leaders were in place. In fact, State (Nuland) lied about when the negotiations started.

Why? Because Obama didn't care what it took, he was going to get a deal with Iran.

Iran will get nukes and when it does I will post "Thanks Obama!" everywhere.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 10 May 2016, 2:13 pm

Sorry, how does that back up the line I specifically queried with you, that Rhodes was "bragging" about "fooling" everyone?